4 ms·

Not passing any judgements on any life choices here, but occasional months off sounds like a good thing. I would not necessarily need to go anywhere to enjoy (m

by tocs3 2y ago

Not passing any judgements on any life choices here, but occasional months off sounds like a good thing. I would not necessarily need to go anywhere to enjoy (make use of) the time. The notion of getting a month off with pay sounds good.

giantg2 2y ago
That sounds good, so long as there is similar employment at the end of it. As a sabbatical it sounds great. As a layoff, the uncertainty sounds crushing. It could take months to find a new position, especially with the disadvantages I have, I would likely need to start looking immediately and wouldn't be able to enjoy it.
- bb88 2y ago
  Yeah, it's the same problem I have when the 20 somethings use the term "funemployment". If you're single and have no responsibilities, sure. The second you have a mortgage, medical conditions that need health insurance, or need money because you had a family emergency and had to dip into savings, it's not "funemployment" at all.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    There was a period in tech when a lot of people had a certain sentiment that they could drop a few emails and have a well-paying job the next week. That's never been the norm for professional work. During dot-bomb I was relatively lucky if not necessarily super-well compensated but I knew a lot of people who basically dropped out of the professional labor market.
- tocs3 2y ago
  Just to be clear, I mean time off and returning to the same job. Shouldn't we be aiming for a future where we do not have to work like dogs to earn enough to struggle at home?
  - bb88 2y ago
    How do you do this? Taxes? Increase worker salaries? Government funded health care? Access to cheap labor is what really drives economies. Market forces are what drive labor salaries. More people cheaper labor. It used to be in the 60s, 70s, and to some extent the 80's a single wage earner was enough in a family. By the end of the 80's it became clear that 2 wage earners was how people got ahead in life.
    - tocs3 2y ago
      I don't know and it is a good question. Maybe we need three or four wage earners per household. Maybe 60-70 hour work weeks. I would like to hear some ideas that does not include more grinding down workers for GDP. Maybe another measure for a health society. Growth certainly help lots of people but when an economy is mature maybe more is not necessarily better, at least for the average worker.
      - giantg2 2y ago
        The main thing is that the share of GDP per worker has gone down, meaning the distribution is skewed. But I agree that there isn't a good option that I've heard to change this without other negative side effects.
        tocs3 2y ago
        Then I suppose increasing wages is a good option as well as adding workers are both options and more paid leave).
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      We don't let the billionaires suck of 90% of the revenue, that's how. Them making 10% of their current salaries stock would still have them well well into retirement. Oh, and not doing 2 trillion in tax cuts for the rich would help.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      I'm not sure how we do this, but our current economic system is garbage. As the saying goes, the other systems we've tried may have been worse, but that doesn't make this system good. A significant portion of the world population works themselves to the bone while barely scraping by. This is not the mark of a successful civilization. It's gross. Maybe as a start, we put limits on the ratio of executive compensation to the lowest paid jobs in a company. And require that a significant percentage of profits be distributed to employees rather than shareholders. Yes, that will slow economic growth. But even as someone reasonably well off, who depends on investments for his future, that seems much more fair than what we're doing now.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Another benefit of the EU. Yearly month of vacation with very little fear of termination
musicale 2y ago
If a layoff were actually a real layoff, you could get your job back once business conditions improve. Tech "layoffs" are something of a euphemism for terminating (rather than pausing) employment for business reasons.
- kelnos 2y ago
  That seems unrealistic. Laid-off workers need to find a new job long before their former employer could hire them back.
  - musicale 2y ago
    If you are unable to obtain a satisfactory replacement position after that time, it might be very desirable to have the option to get your old job back. Some businesses are seasonal, so it might make sense there as well. "Originally, layoff referred exclusively to a temporary interruption in work, or employment" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layoff

by tocs3 2y ago

giantg2 2y ago

That sounds good, so long as there is similar employment at the end of it. As a sabbatical it sounds great. As a layoff, the uncertainty sounds crushing. It could take months to find a new position, especially with the disadvantages I have, I would likely need to start looking immediately and wouldn't be able to enjoy it.

bb88 2y ago
Yeah, it's the same problem I have when the 20 somethings use the term "funemployment". If you're single and have no responsibilities, sure. The second you have a mortgage, medical conditions that need health insurance, or need money because you had a family emergency and had to dip into savings, it's not "funemployment" at all.
- ghaff 2y ago
  There was a period in tech when a lot of people had a certain sentiment that they could drop a few emails and have a well-paying job the next week. That's never been the norm for professional work. During dot-bomb I was relatively lucky if not necessarily super-well compensated but I knew a lot of people who basically dropped out of the professional labor market.
tocs3 2y ago
Just to be clear, I mean time off and returning to the same job. Shouldn't we be aiming for a future where we do not have to work like dogs to earn enough to struggle at home?
- bb88 2y ago
  How do you do this? Taxes? Increase worker salaries? Government funded health care? Access to cheap labor is what really drives economies. Market forces are what drive labor salaries. More people cheaper labor. It used to be in the 60s, 70s, and to some extent the 80's a single wage earner was enough in a family. By the end of the 80's it became clear that 2 wage earners was how people got ahead in life.
  - tocs3 2y ago
    I don't know and it is a good question. Maybe we need three or four wage earners per household. Maybe 60-70 hour work weeks. I would like to hear some ideas that does not include more grinding down workers for GDP. Maybe another measure for a health society. Growth certainly help lots of people but when an economy is mature maybe more is not necessarily better, at least for the average worker.
    - giantg2 2y ago
      The main thing is that the share of GDP per worker has gone down, meaning the distribution is skewed. But I agree that there isn't a good option that I've heard to change this without other negative side effects.
      - tocs3 2y ago
        Then I suppose increasing wages is a good option as well as adding workers are both options and more paid leave).
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    We don't let the billionaires suck of 90% of the revenue, that's how. Them making 10% of their current salaries stock would still have them well well into retirement. Oh, and not doing 2 trillion in tax cuts for the rich would help.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    I'm not sure how we do this, but our current economic system is garbage. As the saying goes, the other systems we've tried may have been worse, but that doesn't make this system good. A significant portion of the world population works themselves to the bone while barely scraping by. This is not the mark of a successful civilization. It's gross. Maybe as a start, we put limits on the ratio of executive compensation to the lowest paid jobs in a company. And require that a significant percentage of profits be distributed to employees rather than shareholders. Yes, that will slow economic growth. But even as someone reasonably well off, who depends on investments for his future, that seems much more fair than what we're doing now.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
Another benefit of the EU. Yearly month of vacation with very little fear of termination

musicale 2y ago

If a layoff were actually a real layoff, you could get your job back once business conditions improve. Tech "layoffs" are something of a euphemism for terminating (rather than pausing) employment for business reasons.

kelnos 2y ago
That seems unrealistic. Laid-off workers need to find a new job long before their former employer could hire them back.
- musicale 2y ago
  If you are unable to obtain a satisfactory replacement position after that time, it might be very desirable to have the option to get your old job back. Some businesses are seasonal, so it might make sense there as well. "Originally, layoff referred exclusively to a temporary interruption in work, or employment" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layoff